Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Dutch East India Co was richer than Apple, Google, Facebook combined (2017)

dutchreview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 166 posts

Re: The Dutch East India Co was richer than Apple, Google, Facebook combined (2017)

#141

Post by notahacker »

CydeWeys wrote: post #125
em500 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As another reference point, an annual salary for low-to-medium skilled labour in mid-17th century Holland was around 100 to 200 guilders, which would be about 20 million USD according to the implied "Infl. Adjusted" conversion in the article (upon which the entire premise of the article rests).

It does make you wonder what the inflation-adjusted figures are purported to mean even, given that they result in completely ridiculous results. By contrast, an inflation calculator tells me that $100 one hundred years ago is worth around $2,500 now (so 25X). And according to this article https://www.jstor.org/stable/1820827?seq=1#metadata_info_tab... , a pretty typical wage back then was $0.50 per hour. 25X that is…

Inflation is usually measured as the change over time in the prices of a "representative" basket of goods (and which goods in which proportion is a pretty subjective choice). Over time, the costs of particular goods diverge a lot, especially with respect to wages, and how important those goods are to the economy also varies a lot.

The purchasing power of a typical weekly wage in 1800 or 1637 looks very different depending on whether you express it in terms of bread rolls, non-leather settees or bluetooth speakers (all of which are constituent parts of the modern UK CPI index)

Re: The Dutch East India Co was richer than Apple, Google, Facebook combined (2017)

#142

Post by cromulent »

Razengan wrote: post #135

These comparisons of wealth across different eras seem kind of stupid: I, a barely-middle-class individual, can own and have access to things and services that the richest nobility of 100 years ago wouldn't have been able to even dream of. Everybody can go to almost anywhere in the world within basically 24 hours, whereas a century ago long-distance journeys were measured in weeks and months. In a couple generations,…

It does seem really difficult. You have to pay people enough to live a normal life, which has changed dramatically over time. Now we expect disposable income, savings, healthcare, car purchase, devices etc. Back then, enough to eat daily may have been enough.

Re: The Dutch East India Co was richer than Apple, Google, Facebook combined (2017)

#143

Post by cromulent »

speleding wrote: post #122
jacquesm wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This should not be downvoted, it is historically accurate, the VOC imported 10's of thousands of slaves to do work that they were not prepared to pay for. It's a nice example of there being a huge crime at the foundation of huge riches, the VOC was definitely not a clean company by any stretch of the imagination and to this day the names of those who were responsible for the worst atrocities are proudly on display in…

Slaves were merchandise for the VOC but they did not import many slaves to do work [1]. They typically (ab)used the local population to do that. Still nothing to be proud of, but it is a different story than slaves that were brought to the Americas to work on plantations. Exploitation of the local people would certainly be unethical by today's standards, it wasn't unethical back then and it also wasn't a crime (altho…

It's an interesting discussion. Liverpool was a huge trading port and a powerful city for a long time, mostly built from the slave trade. No local slaves, but plenty of people who became rich from slavery.

"Overall, Liverpool ships transported half of the 3 million Africans carried across the Atlantic by British slavers."

http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/ism/slavery/europe/liverp...

Re: The Dutch East India Co was richer than Apple, Google, Facebook combined (2017)

#144

Post by cyphunk »

bartimus wrote: post #40
antt wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, imagine how much more efficient Microsoft and Apple would be if they could hire slaves directly instead of having to rely on warlords in Africa to do it for them.

It looks like slaves were more like merchandise for the VOC. And not really that significant for their trade. They were bought from existing slave markets. Slaves were mainly captured by local Africans (from other tribes). > the Dutch had only a relatively insignificant share in the Atlantic slave trade—never averaging much more than 5–6 per cent of the total. https://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/545

Additional information about the companies use of slaves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_East_India_Company#Slave...

Re: The Dutch East India Co was richer than Apple, Google, Facebook combined (2017)

#145

Post by dredmorbius »

ekianjo wrote: post #31
rejschaap wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the article they seem to use the maximum attained market capitalization during its existence indexed to current day dollars.

That's not a good definition of value if you enter into a phase of speculation.

What's a better one?

Re: The Dutch East India Co was richer than Apple, Google, Facebook combined (2017)

#146

Post by dredmorbius »

rejschaap wrote: post #25
dredmorbius wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is value?

In the article they seem to use the maximum attained market capitalization during its existence indexed to current day dollars.

Are markets fair, efficient, omniscient, and/or rational?

What alternatives exist for defining value?

What do we mean by value?

Re: The Dutch East India Co was richer than Apple, Google, Facebook combined (2017)

#147

Post by cr0sh »

Razengan wrote: post #135

These comparisons of wealth across different eras seem kind of stupid: I, a barely-middle-class individual, can own and have access to things and services that the richest nobility of 100 years ago wouldn't have been able to even dream of. Everybody can go to almost anywhere in the world within basically 24 hours, whereas a century ago long-distance journeys were measured in weeks and months. In a couple generations,…

One thing that hasn't changed, though, in comparisons of wealth, is the size of one's house.

While a high-ranking official or royalty in the middle ages couldn't travel anywhere in 24 hours, if you look at their house(s), many of them compare favorably to what the ultra-rich are able to purchase/build today in square feet (though today, the wealthy - and the lesser folk - have better materials to build with when it comes to insulation, plus central HVAC and other amenities of course). They also had an equivalent amount of hired labor (perhaps in some cases, even more, because they didn't have amenities we take for granted today, like indoor running water).

But just in raw square footage under roof, some of those places that are still standing today are pretty amazing, and would be amazing to own today (provided you could afford the maintenance and upkeep). This holds almost as far back in history as you want to go.

Height, though - we have them beat, there. An ultra-wealthy person, if they wanted to (there are few today that I have read about) - could have a modern skyscraper built for a home (or renovate one into a personal home, provided zoning allows for it - which I am sure, if you are wealthy enough, you can get a waiver for).

Re: The Dutch East India Co was richer than Apple, Google, Facebook combined (2017)

#148

Post by cr0sh »

flexie wrote: post #131
RosanaAnaDana wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you dig into that more and explain why it is so difficult to compare wealth across centuries? It would seem to me that you would just find some basic unit to divide against (a dozen eggs; a liter of milk; a sq kilometer of land), and then scale? Whats wrong with my presumption? I know there must be quite a bit wrong with it, but I'm not familiar with economics whatsoever.

Because inflation doesn't take into account all the improvements that have been made. A liter of milk or a dozen eggs may almost be the same in 1630 and 2019. A square kilometer of farm land is not, since the crop yield today far exceeds that of 1630 (it has increased almost tenfold since 1930 due to mechanization, fertilizers and new grain types). So the same piece of land that could feed a family in 1930 now almost…

> The very richest king in 1630 was dead poor compared to you.

I guess it depends on how and what you compare things.

All you say is arguably true. Yet I can guarantee that in one manner, those people were as wealthy or potentially wealthier than most of the ultra-wealthy of today:

Because they owned land.

If you look at the sheer square footage of their "houses" (palaces) - not including the surrounding estate land - they tend to be very large and grandiose sprawling things.

While the ultra-wealthy of today do own a lot of land (and in some cases, perhaps more than the richest of kings back then) - the majority of people have little to none (and of those that do, most don't have the mineral rights to their land).

In that manner, there isn't much comparison. The question of whether or what is the better trade-off can be quibbled over; after all, all the land in the world back then couldn't transport one halfway across the world in hours - but some today might see that tradeoff as fair, and others back then might have traded all of their land in order to be able to stream youtube to a handheld "magical" device.

But the ultra-wealthy of today are able to have virtually everything the ultra-wealthy back then had (and in some cases, that even includes a "standing army" more or less), plus all the extras normal people have access to today.

Re: The Dutch East India Co was richer than Apple, Google, Facebook combined (2017)

#149

Post by Hatamatarat »

Razengan wrote: post #135

These comparisons of wealth across different eras seem kind of stupid: I, a barely-middle-class individual, can own and have access to things and services that the richest nobility of 100 years ago wouldn't have been able to even dream of. Everybody can go to almost anywhere in the world within basically 24 hours, whereas a century ago long-distance journeys were measured in weeks and months. In a couple generations,…

Everybody can go to almost anywhere in the world within basically 24 hours? I will have to disagree with that. I'm a citizen of a certain "developing" country and I can't get a tourist visa to more than half of the world, and 100% of Western countries.

Re: The Dutch East India Co was richer than Apple, Google, Facebook combined (2017)

#150

Post by Razengan »

Hatamatarat wrote: post #149
Razengan wrote: post #135

These comparisons of wealth across different eras seem kind of stupid: I, a barely-middle-class individual, can own and have access to things and services that the richest nobility of 100 years ago wouldn't have been able to even dream of. Everybody can go to almost anywhere in the world within basically 24 hours, whereas a century ago long-distance journeys were measured in weeks and months. In a couple generations,…

Everybody can go to almost anywhere in the world within basically 24 hours? I will have to disagree with that. I'm a citizen of a certain "developing" country and I can't get a tourist visa to more than half of the world, and 100% of Western countries.

Yes, I meant technically, not politically. In the latter, there is less freedom now than there used to be, but there are more means now than there were, to escape the bracket one was born into.
Post reply on HN